Excerpts from Olivier Crête's message of Wed Mar 30 22:14:30 +0200 2011: > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 21:56 +0200, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: > > The main problem is that user might not know what kind of “foo” support > > it is. For example I have “pango” USE flag in sys-boot/plymouth. What > > would explain to you something like: “Enables support for > > x11-libs/pango”? And how you would compare it with “Adds support for > > printing text on splash screen and text prompts, e.g. for password”? > > I'm sorry, but that's a terrible example.. In this case, it shouldn't be > a use flag at all. We shoudl avoid having use flag where the description > is "Adds support for not being completely broken"
Please… We're not actually discussing about what should be flagged or not, but about descriptions, where I think I have made the point more or less. Justin has pointed problem which is worth our attention. It is not just me being pissed off when reading „Enable support for foo”, there are many users complaining about that. -- Amadeusz Żołnowski PGP key fpr: C700 CEDE 0C18 212E 49DA 4653 F013 4531 E1DB FAB5
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
