From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GA703-0006RC-8A for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:26:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k77FPBvB004758; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:25:11 GMT Received: from smtp0.libero.it (smtp0.libero.it [193.70.192.33]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k77FLoNU013676 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:21:50 GMT Received: from localhost (172.16.1.203) by smtp0.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 44C8DF1800A362AD for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:21:50 +0200 Received: from smtp1.libero.it ([172.16.1.224]) by localhost (asav17.libero.it [193.70.193.4]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18072-05-3 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:21:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.6] (adsl-ull-148-166.44-151.net24.it [151.44.166.148]) by smtp1.libero.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D88A8C66 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:21:49 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <44D75A8B.4010505@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:21:47 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060803) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax References: <7B97065F451A23458ED0C63B4CA5A2EA7C4A6F@SRV-EXCHANGE.AUTOonline.local> In-Reply-To: <7B97065F451A23458ED0C63B4CA5A2EA7C4A6F@SRV-EXCHANGE.AUTOonline.local> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned: with antispam and antivirus automated system at libero.it X-Archives-Salt: 7b72da1b-386b-427d-a844-d07a6fc6f6dc X-Archives-Hash: 79e4eb82dce6fbc668799e3f281ed77c 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