From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.105.134.102] (helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DiYOG-000642-QO for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:57:13 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j5FDtavn014726; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:55:36 GMT Received: from smtp03.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (smtp.nuvox.net [64.89.70.9]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j5FDphFX011738 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:51:44 GMT Received: from cgianelloni.nuvox.net (216.215.202.4.nw.nuvox.net [216.215.202.4]) by smtp03.gnvlscdb.sys.nuvox.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j5FDqjWK003228 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:52:46 -0400 Received: by cgianelloni.nuvox.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:52:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force support From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <42AF9765.8090800@gentoo.org> References: <20050613144048.GB4585@lightning.stealer.net> <1118703403.28392.5.camel@localhost> <20050615012635.GJ4585@lightning.stealer.net> <42AF9765.8090800@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3O0vlCYsEQ4R/b2Wpbr2" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:52:03 -0400 Message-Id: <1118843523.14164.16.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 X-Archives-Salt: b9d8ca2b-641f-4699-b201-8a826bd10daa X-Archives-Hash: 52360d466e2a5a7ef8cd4a55408a2f89 --=-3O0vlCYsEQ4R/b2Wpbr2 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 19:50 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > Sven Wegener wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > >=20 > >>I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,=20 > >>package.use.auto or are you set on .force? > >=20 > >=20 > > As Mike already wrote those names are too confusing with the automatic > > activated USE flags. We already had some suggestions in this thread, bu= t > > none of them actually matched the purpose of the file. At least in my > > opinion. use.force matches it best, but the "force" part is a quite har= d > > term. How about use.profile? Because these USE flags are activated or > > needed by the profile. >=20 > How about use.required, since they're required by the profile? I like this much better. It gives the user an obvious sense of the purpose of the file/USE flags. It also doesn't give the impression of "forcing" something on people, but rather to say that "these need to be here for proper functionality of this profile", which seems to be less intrusive. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux --=-3O0vlCYsEQ4R/b2Wpbr2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCsDKDkT4lNIS36YERAnm9AKCdjtnKrIr57O6nunsFKX5ALb5TPgCfQZE+ 8yNAoqw+MOjtCb9IL4lYdKo= =PCDe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-3O0vlCYsEQ4R/b2Wpbr2-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list