Re: AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax

[Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>]

Noack, Sebastian wrote:
> 
> Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a
> simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less
> number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you
> the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like complexity? Well
> you could say that only source code and scripts contain logic and
> therefore numbers of lines in the config files doesn't means complexity,
> but what do I do by the config files of portage actually? I use them for
> example to instruct portage to enable useflag A but not for ebuild and
> useflag B but just for ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic?

I claim that is simple and you should wait at least 24 h before posting
on -dev.

> 
> That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point,
> you used to confuse this discussion. The grandma scenario should just be
> a funny example for a requirement of such a advanced portage syntax I
> could really need on my own systems and I'm not female, but male and not
> 80 but 18 years old. ;)

Poor you.

> I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the
> current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when
> I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution.

You can just write something like flagedit for your extreme uses.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list