Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-editors/leafpad: ChangeLog leafpad-0.8.14.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2383 bytes --]

On Monday 31 March 2008, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | On Sunday 30 March 2008, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> |>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> |>>>
> |>>> And IMHO the "emacs" USE flag should not be used here:
> |>>>
> |>>> $ ./configure -hs
> |>>> Configuration of Leafpad 0.8.12:
> |>>>
> |>>> Optional Features:
> |>>> [...]
> |>>> --enable-emacs          implement Emacs key theme (experimental)
> |>>>
> |>>> $ equery uses =leafpad-0.8.12
> |>>> [...]
> |>>> + + emacs : Adds support for GNU Emacs
> |>>>
> |>>> As its description says, the flag is intended for GNU Emacs support
> |>>> which is not the case here.
> |>>
> |>> i think the USE flag makes sense. perhaps the description should be
> |>> changed.
> |>
> |> Certainly a USE flag makes sense here, but it shouldn't be USE=emacs.
> |>
> |> The "emacs" global USE flag is used by 82 other packages (all outside
> |> the app-emacs category). Its purpose is always that GNU Emacs specific
> |> files are installed; either directly, or indirectly by pulling another
> |> package via *DEPEND.
> |
> | why cant it mean both ?  USE flags are intended to control features, not
> | dependencies.  often times that just happens to translate into
> | dependencies. realistically though, anyone who wants "emacs" wants all
> | emacs "things".  if it were to just pull in the emacs dependency, then
> | that could just as easily be accomplished by `emerge emacs` and then we
> | can drop the USE flag entirely. -mike
>
> If this in an emacs thing, then I guess it includes its own
> emacs-compatible elisp implementation with editor primitives exported to
> the user? Otherwise customizability is something of a laugh. Keybindings
> can be rewired. Simply having the same default keybindings as emacs does
> not make a package emacsy.
>
> Seeing as this is an editor and a "GTK+ based simple text editor" I doubt
> it has much claim to emacs-ness.

why does this matter ?  if an application includes optional support for 
an "emacs skin" such that it includes emacs bindings/shortcuts/whatever, it 
sounds to me like USE=emacs is appropriate.  ive seen random applications 
that have different keybinding modes have the default set, and then optional 
vi or emacs to select from so that things behave as such users would expect.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]