From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QOsTl-0003v3-MP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:21:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E354F1C574; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:20:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.38]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4E51C56B for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:20:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (D4B2706A.static.ziggozakelijk.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4OEKDKu072104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 16:20:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:20:11 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should "server" be a global use flag? Message-ID: <20110524162011.0242c014@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <1306223571.21239.30.camel@tablet> References: <4DDA6EA9.5040408@gentoo.org> <20110523171910.50e18ef0@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <1306223571.21239.30.camel@tablet> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 4bccff56917d4aae5e719808895f73e6 On Tue, 24 May 2011 11:52:51 +0400 Peter Volkov wrote: > =D0=92 =D0=9F=D0=BD=D0=B4, 23/05/2011 =D0=B2 17:19 +0200, Jeroen Roovers = =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > I find myself wondering why so much information is being jammed into > > USE flag descriptions that /should/ be available in HOWTOs from > > upstream, or else should be written down in HOWTOs we maintain > > ourselves - we (Gentoo) used to be good at providing HOWTOs as > > needed and it's a good tradition to keep up. It helps the entire > > open source community and not just our users, too. >=20 > I don't see how moving USE flag descriptions from portage tree in > HOWTOs will help community. This will just take more time to check > what USE flag does. Also it's clear that maintaining another 10 > guides will just slow things down with no real benefit. I never suggested were moving USE flag descriptions into HOWTOs (how? what does that mean?). I said USE flag descriptions were being (ab)used where proper HOWTOs would serve users better. And I suggested HOWTOs should be used to introduce users to new software - good upstreams do this, and Gentoo used to do this a lot, which is one of Gentoo's great attractions. Explaining how a package works in USE flag descriptions is no replacement for good documentation, and the tags in metadata.xml weren't introduced to replace documentation. > > Anyway, count the YESs above. Maybe some people want to > > comment/explain/defend how they wrote their descriptions, so don't > > touch them just yet. :)=20 >=20 > We can add global 'server' USE flag and still keep local USE flag > descriptions where they make global description a bit more clear. And > if I understood your last message correctly, in case you want to > update USE flag descriptions yourself, please, don't touch USE flag > descriptions but open bugs for maintainers to decide. Who me? Please read the entire thread. And please don't be so territorial either - just blame the right people when they mess up, instead. jer