On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:15:45 -0600 Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:05:46 -0300 > Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control > > > > what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable, > > to better distinguish between important useflags and less important > > ones > > > > is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or > > something?' ? > > No, I meant one USE flag, called "tools", that builds and installs > all or none of them. Unless they have external dependencies, or > extraordinary build times, or licensing issues, then I can't see a > situation where someone would want or need to pick and choose like > this. If you disagree then I suppose an expanded variable is an > improvement, though I don't like them myself. > > Kudos on the USE flag descriptions in any case. Very informative. well, there's no extra dep nor licensing issue, and its not that they are big either, problem is with a merged useflag to rule them all we'll lose all the descriptions; i can imagine: tools - install random extra tools vs. a per tool useflag describing what it is for i clearly prefer the latter, even if it requires me 5 more minutes to decide the fate of the useflags i'll build the package with personally i dont like the tools useflag, the same i dont like the server one or the minimal one. they're too generic and, for this reason, useless if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree on is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?
